Easy airbase destruction wins games

What do you think about airbase modules being easily destroyed along with ineffective airfield AA?

I had a game last night at 9.7 BR with bots and low player count. A player on the other team started destroying the spawn ability of our airfields while we were well ahead on ticket count. I responded in kind. It came down to a 1 v 1 (+2 bots that were irrelevant) after all AF spawns on both sides were destroyed and the few other players were lost by attrition. With the winner being decided by no active players on the other team as they were unable to spawn.

I had fun as a novelty, but I am not sure it’s the best for the game mode.

I also dislike that it causes people looking to join a match at a given BR, which can already be rare, to effectively be locked out of even forcing a bot match start.

Airfield destruction should be completely removed, due to it being the most exploited mechanic by bots and farmers from other game modes. Airfield destruction was an interesting thing to try, but the exploiters have completely ruined it.

Leave win conditions to the tasks being completed. The bots and farmers will either have to smarten up, or move on to another mode.


I thought this was Hyperbole and so decided to test it out. Normally dumping bombs on an AF seems to do minimal damage and is a usual way I dump bombs with no other targets nearby. Today I took out 1/4 of the base “hardpoints” in a single bomb run, and by the base damage I got for it. Im guessing it only took maybe 3 or 4 out of the 12 bombs I dropped to do it.

Now I couldnt test it with PGMs as they appear to be blocked from targetting AFs (more testing needed) but if they do work, I could take out an entire AF in a few sorties, at long range, easily. You could end SB matches really quickly.

I think AFs need to count towards bombing damage, its a convenient thing to drop bombs on if htere is no bases/carrier. But Yeah, they need a HP buff if nothing else

Correction, PGMs do work, just buggy

Maybe people should defend their airfields better?


Maybe we should have real bomb sights that require flying at a particular height and straight and level to accurately deliver bombs on target.

Maybe we require bombers to be locked in cockpit view and not 360 degrees of view.

Maybe we should have individual gunner stations with proper turret controls and Traverse speeds and not every gunner on board automatically slave to where the mouse is pointed.

Maybe we should increase sentinel formations to 2 and increase their BR and height and increase their range of operation.

Maybe there should be no easy flight controls for bombers in a sim mode.

Just so many maybes it hard to pick


Well… He did specify 9.7. So that is bombers in in cockpit, with no turrets. Sentinels do nothing, I’ve never seen them do anything at least.

I just took out 3/4 base parts with PGM-2000s, at 20k ft, from 10 ish km away, with absolute ease in 3 sorties. Probably be 2 with practice and some PGM bug fixes.

Runway needed some bombs to finish up. But that was easy, CCRP + 20k ft, 10x1k bombs dealt with it in a single pass. With practice, I think I could take out an entire AF, in 3 sorties. But I just comfortably did it in 4. In a Mach 1.05-1.15 capable jet. I could take out all AFs pretty quickly and thats alone. With 2 or 3 other doing it as well. You could end the match fast. Definetly needs some changes.

AFs should still reward activity time when bombed, but it should take a LOT more than a few PGM-2000s to finish off.

(P.S I dont intend to do that, though could be a good way to control the flow of the game by taking out 1 or 2 AFs, for now I’ll stick with the normal bomb targets, more fun anyway)


And that’s why we have farmers.

Thank you for conducting an experiment and sharing your data.

Good job

1 Like

No probs. that was with the Tornado Gr1 btw. In some jets, with more speacilised weapons loads (Im not entirely sure what the F-14B for example can carry in a single loadout) I could see an AF being destroyed in maybe 2 sorties.

1 Like

F4 phantoms 😂 …you want to take out the crew tents first, then nothing repairs and things go faster…

This the kind of stuff that ruins the mode.


Yeah, could easily do that. Was thinking, depending on amount of bombs needed.

1 needed about 2k
1 needed about 2-4k
1 needed about 4-6k
and then i just dumped 10k on the runway.

(I fired multiple PGMs at some targets, but unkown if they all hit, I’ve had… issues, with them)

Assuming the runway didnt need much. Then something like the buc S2 could take out an AF in a single pass. It can carry 16k of bombs. Drop 4k on each target. I’ll do some testing later and see what each part needs to be “Destroyed”

1 Like

and agreed. It was definetly not thought about. Guess this was an ARB change that got shoved into SB without thought.

1 Like

It was all pretty hilarious for a while and the rewards, ludicrous both in SL and RP…millions and millions, each rocket impact had a huge reward and you could just zip back and forth as if going to the ATM . I think they reduced the rewards, but that is what peace servers and farming lobbies are about.

I guess they should have more interesting bomb targets like railways and factories and harbours, and air fields should be a lot better defended and require a coordinated effort of at least 3-4 jets and defenses should be such that there should be at least 40-50% attrition and modules should be much harder to destroy then a couple of passes.

What can one say…it is what it is and it has been this way for quite a while.

Hence lower tiers, 3,4,5 are a lot more fun

1 Like

Thougu at least they did change that to not count towards tickets. This change basically means the af is disabled and you cant repair and rearm. Those farmer, whilst annoying, didnt affect the game. They can now .

It’s an obvious design flaw, when the most advanced mode attracts the laziest players.


Well not that my opinion means much, but I had hoped they would go back to WW-1 instead of forward, modern systems, were always going to open a whole new can of worms.

I had hoped they would do the early air battles and that would have given them time to build upon

  1. ground based Radar systems
  2. Integrated Air defenses
  3. AI GCI controllers
  4. the Jet AI and Missile systems.
  5. Awacs
  6. Map sizes that would allow everything in.
  7. Integrate Helicopters for ground ops.

So if they had done it right, you would first have to have reconnaissance missions to find enemy Ground Radar system and missile defenses, then conduct SEAD missions, and once you had cleared a path, then get to attack Air bases. Jet AI, would be a lot more effective, Sentinels would be a better class of jet that could intercept Radar Tracks and fire missiles . . .etc etc etc

Obviously . .just plonking modern jets into a game mode designed for WW-II was going to result in High speed jets just flying in a straight line and bombing the snot out of enemy air fields and our current predicament.

No doubt its a huge effort and requires deep thought and planning . . .Gajin just seemed to get caught up in the churning out of premiums

Thus it had been my hope that they would go backwards and give them selves some time to plan the future.

And here we are. . .don’t know how they can fix it.


IIRC, I was taking out the runway with 7x1000lbs in a single sortie. Three sorties to spawn lock the other team. If 6x1000 lbs could do it, the A-7 could take out 2 AF runways in a single sortie from altitude with CCRP.

You only need to destroy the runways to prevent respawns. Then just kill the other team. It’s definitely an interesting game mechanism, but would almost make more sense as an RB EC variant of attack/ defend the base.

In a proper game design, simulating a modern conflict, a high flying jet would show up on Radar and every missile system in Range would be firing and interceptors would be vectored in and he would never get any where near an Air Base.

It is not a question of Repair costs and rewards for useful actions and Premiums and Golden eagles . .

They just smooshed all these modern jets in to a WW-II style conflict and then try to use rewards and repair cost to try and bring sense to a non sensical design.

Sure you could have a death match and put all these air craft in . . .but then the win would be who kills the most enemy.

In something like EC, a large battle field, simulating a larger conflict . . . its just too simplistic a model for modern weapon systems. . . . works great for WW-II and early jets

It would take a great deal of work to fix it . . .I just doubt Gaijin will put in the hours.

1 Like

If thats the case. Tornado Gr1 could disable 2x AFs in a single sortie, and if its less, about 5k, then Buc S2 could do 3. But I do feel its too powerful. If AFs respawned after a time duration/if too many AFs were destroyed (so always had to be 1 active AF) Then it certainly would be better.

Though it does make me yearn for the JP233 Runway denial weapons the Tornado Gr1 could carry. Would be a lot more fun than just lobbing bombs or high alt CCRP dropping them